DowDuPont turns company site into industrial park
Then, this happened...DOW GAVE $500K TO PRO-SCHUETTE DARK MONEY GROUP
Then, this happened...
DowDuPont and Corteva named in Michigan PFAS suit
Michigan PFAS Complaint 1.1... by Beverly Tran on Scribd
Then, this happened...
Feds revoked Edenville Dam license over fears it could not survive major flood
Numerous violations and longstanding concerns that the Edenville Dam could not withstand a significant flood led the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to revoke its license for power generation in September 2018.The Edenville dam, located on the border of Midland and Gladwin counties, failed late Tuesday afternoon, leading to the failure of a downstream dam on the Tittabawassee River and forcing evacuations in Midland County.
The extent of the damage is not yet determined.
The energy commission (FERC), which regulates U.S. power generation, notified the dam's previous owner as far back as 1999 that it needed to increase capacity of the Edenville dam's spillways to prevent a significant flood from overcoming the structure.
FERC subsequently notified the dam's new owner, Boyce Hydro Power LLC, when the license transferred in 2004.
By June 2017, the commission cracked down, citing the owner's "longstanding failure to address the project’s inadequate spillway capacity at this high hazard dam."
"Thirteen years after acquiring the license for the project, the licensee has still not increased spillway capacity, leaving the project in danger," wrote Jennifer Hill, director dvision of Hydropower Administration and Compliance. "The spillway capacity deficiencies must be remedied in order to protect life, limb and property."
More: Whitmer: Midland could be under 9 feet of water during historic flooding
More: Pilot captures aerial view of dam breach in Midland County
Then, this happened...
And Michigan allowed this to happen...
Notable by FERC was Edenville's classification as a high hazard dam, meaning its failure could present significant risk to life and property, especially in the downstream village of Sanford, city of Midland and Northwood University.
Boyce Hydro had argued to FERC that it had ongoing litigation with the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality over gaining permits to construct more spillway capacity.
A spillway is essentially an overflow valve, allowing excess water to safely flow around the dam without damaging the structure.
Boyce Hydro owns four dams on the Tittabawassee River, which runs southeasterly through mid-Michigan, emptying into the Saginaw River at Saginaw. The three other dams were still creating hydropower at the time of Tuesday's breach. They create Wixom, Sanford, Secord and Smallwood lakes.
The Sanford Lake dam subsequently failed on Tuesday.
In January 2019, FERC sent a two-page letter to Boyce Hydro, noting that it had canceled its scheduled October 2018 "functional exercise" at the Sanford, Second and Smallwood dams. Functional exercises simulate an emergency to test preparedness.
The FERC letter reminded Boyce of its duty to conduct the exercise, setting a Feb. 28, 2019, deadline.
FERC did not immediately respond to a request for information on whether that exercise was ever rescheduled.
In January, a two-county authority called the Four Lakes Task Force agreed to purchase the four dams and lakes for $9.4 million from Boyce Trusts, using money from a special tax district to help rehabilitate the structures. The cost of improving the dams was expected to be $100 million and the sale was expected to be complete by early 2022.
That action came after years of citations issued by FERC against the owners of the Edenville dam. They included violations for making unauthorized repairs, unauthorized earth moving, failure to file proper safety plans, failure to provide recreational areas and public access, failure to secure necessary property rights and failure to comply with water quality orders.
But the government's most significant concern, by far, was the failure to increase the capacity of spillways that would allow the dam to survive a "probable maximum flood" event.
FERC argued that the Edenville structure, constructed in 1925, could not handle 50% of a probable maximum flood for the region and that even Boyce's insufficient and incomplete plans would increase capacity only to 66% of a probable maximum flood.
In an effort to retain its license, Boyce Hydro and the Sanford Lake Association argued that revocation of the license would not improve public safety, because revoking the license would make the dam less attractive to potential buyers and because ceasing power generation would kill the only other source of revenue that could be used to expand its spillway capacity.
In its 2018 request, Boyce Hydro LLC also argued that the "odds of a 'probable maximum flood' event occurring in the next 5 to 10 years is 5 to 10 in one million," according to federal records.
FERC denied the request for a rehearing, finding that revocation of the license would not endanger the public.
"Michigan DEQ has extensive dam safety regulations, including enforcement mechanisms such as the ability to commence a civil action for appropriate relief for violations," commissioners found.
"For over 14 years, the commission has gone to great lengths to compel compliance with the license requirements and Boyce Hydro has delayed, disregarded its responsibility, and claimed that it was not financially capable of meeting such requirements. Meanwhile, Boyce Hydro continued to benefit from the revenues generated by the project."
FUN FACT! THE BAY COUNTY LAND BANK AUTHORITY IS NOT INCORPORATED JUST LIKE THE DETROIT LAND BANK AUTHORITY IS NOT INCORPORATED
The Bay County Land Bank Authority was created by the Bay County Board of Commissioners on August 11, 2009 via resolution no. 2009-144 pursuant to 2003 P.A. 258, MCL 124.773(4). The Authority is comprised of seven (7) members representing specific groups: Treasurer, County Executive, two members of the County Board of Commissioners, two representatives of local units of government selected by a majority of the County Board plus a general public representative. The role of the Land Bank Authority is to deal with unique property issues or to dispose of properties that may not sell at a public auction. The Treasurer and County Executive serve as long as they hold office, the County Board representatives serve two years or as long as they hold office, the township representatives (2) serve terms of one year and two years, respectively, and the general public representative shall serve a three year term. After the expiration of the initial terms, members appointed under Section 4.01(d) and (e) shall be appointed in the same manner as the original appointments but for terms of three (3) years.
Shawna S. Walraven
County Treasurer
515 Center Ave.
Bay City, MI 48708
Debbie Kiesel
Bay City Community Development Director
301 Washington Ave.
Bay City, MI 48708
Michael E. Lutz
County Commissioner
515 Center Ave.
Bay City, MI 48708
Tom Ryder
County Commissioner
515 Center Ave.
Bay City, MI 48708
Ronald Campbell
Frankenlust Township Supervisor
7116 Brentwood Dr.
Bay City, MI 48706
Kristin McDonald Rivet, City
City of Bay City Commissioner
301 Washington Avenue
Bay City, MI 48708
Fran DeWyse
At Large Representative
96 E. Center Ave.
Essexville, MI 48732
Executive Order on Regulatory Relief to Support Economic Recovery
ECONOMY & JOBS
Issued on: May 19, 2020 <=== Is this what you call a direct message?
In December 2019, a novel coronavirus known as SARS-CoV-2 (“the virus”) was first detected in Wuhan, Hubei Province, People’s Republic of China, causing an outbreak of the disease COVID-19, which has now spread globally. The Secretary of Health and Human Services declared a public health emergency on January 31, 2020, under section 319 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 247d), in response to COVID-19. In Proclamation 9994 of March 13, 2020 (Declaring a National Emergency Concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Outbreak), I declared that the COVID-19 outbreak in the United States constituted a national emergency, beginning March 1, 2020.
I have taken sweeping action to control the spread of the virus in the United States, including by suspending entry of certain foreign nationals who present a risk of transmitting the virus; implementing policies to accelerate acquisition of personal protective equipment and bring new diagnostic capabilities to laboratories; and pressing forward rapidly in the search for effective treatments and vaccines. Our States, tribes, territories, local communities, health authorities, hospitals, doctors and nurses, manufacturers, and critical infrastructure workers have all performed heroic service on the front lines battling COVID-19. Executive departments and agencies (agencies), under my leadership, have helped them by taking hundreds of administrative actions since March, many of which provided flexibility regarding burdensome requirements that stood in the way of implementing the most effective strategies to stop the virus’s spread.
The virus has attacked our Nation’s economy as well as its health. Many businesses and non-profits have been forced to close or lay off workers, and in the last 8 weeks, the Nation has seen more than 36 million new unemployment insurance claims. I have worked with the Congress to provide vital relief to small businesses to keep workers employed and to bring assistance to those who have lost their jobs. On April 16, 2020, I announced Guidelines for Opening Up America Again, a framework for safely re-opening the country and putting millions of Americans back to work.
Just as we continue to battle COVID-19 itself, so too must we now join together to overcome the effects the virus has had on our economy. Success will require the efforts not only of the Federal Government, but also of every State, tribe, territory, and locality; of businesses, non-profits, and houses of worship; and of the American people. To aid those efforts, agencies must continue to remove barriers to the greatest engine of economic prosperity the world has ever known: the innovation, initiative, and drive of the American people.
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. Policy. It is the policy of the United States to combat the economic consequences of COVID-19 with the same vigor and resourcefulness with which the fight against COVID-19 itself has been waged. Agencies should address this economic emergency by rescinding, modifying, waiving, or providing exemptions from regulations and other requirements that may inhibit economic recovery, consistent with applicable law and with protection of the public health and safety, with national and homeland security, and with budgetary priorities and operational feasibility. They should also give businesses, especially small businesses, the confidence they need to re-open by providing guidance on what the law requires; by recognizing the efforts of businesses to comply with often-complex regulations in complicated and swiftly changing circumstances; and by committing to fairness in administrative enforcement and adjudication.
Sec. 2. Definitions. (a) “Emergency authorities” means any statutory or regulatory authorities or exceptions that authorize action in an emergency, in exigent circumstances, for good cause, or in similar situations.
(b) “Agency” has the meaning given in section 3502 of title 44, United States Code.
(c) “Administrative enforcement” includes investigations, assertions of statutory or regulatory violations, and adjudications by adjudicators as defined herein.
(d) “Adjudicator” means an agency official who makes a determination that has legal consequence, as defined in section 2(d) of Executive Order 13892 of October 9, 2019 (Promoting the Rule of Law Through Transparency and Fairness in Civil Administrative Enforcement and Adjudication), for a person, except that it does not mean the head of an agency, a member of a multi-member board that heads an agency, or a Presidential appointee.
(e) “Pre-enforcement ruling” has the meaning given it in section 2(f) of Executive Order 13892.
(f) “Regulatory standard” includes any requirement imposed on the public by a Federal regulation, as defined in section 2(g) of Executive Order 13892, or any recommendation, best practice, standard, or other, similar provision of a Federal guidance document as defined in section 2(c) of Executive Order 13892.
(g) “Unfair surprise” has the meaning given it in section 2(e) of Executive Order 13892.
Agencies shall act transparently and fairly with respect to all affected parties, as outlined in this order, when engaged in civil administrative enforcement or adjudication. No person should be subjected to a civil administrative enforcement action or adjudication absent prior public notice of both the enforcing agency's jurisdiction over particular conduct and the legal standards applicable to that conduct. Moreover, the Federal Government should, where feasible, foster greater private-sector cooperation in enforcement, promote information sharing with the private sector, and establish predictable outcomes for private conduct. Agencies shall afford regulated parties the safeguards described in this order, above and beyond those that the courts have interpreted the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution to impose.TRANSLATION: "Since we got away with running the TARP gerrymandering water ops in Detroit & Flint, why not run the same transposable model with Midland to get out of the PFAS lawsuit, since Bill *Smooches* Schuette is one of those DuPontDow Trust Fund Babies. That way, we can most definitely rig the election with the same absentee ballot transposable model run in the 2016 elections, seize more land to run more Corporate Shape Shifting mortgage fraud, quiet title schemes through fake ass LLCs, get more TARP 6.0 money to run out the U.S. through more tiny humans trust funds and never get prosecuted, not even for the Detroit Land Bank Authority ops, since Executive Orders are policy, not law, because only Congress makes law."
DOJ: Wilmington Trust Found Guilty For Stealin' From Detroit
Sec. 3. Federal Response. The heads of all agencies are directed to use, to the fullest extent possible and consistent with applicable law, any emergency authorities that I have previously invoked in response to the COVID-19 outbreak or that are otherwise available to them to support the economic response to the COVID-19 outbreak. The heads of all agencies are also encouraged to promote economic recovery through non-regulatory actions.Sec. 4. Rescission and waiver of regulatory standards. The heads of all agencies shall identify regulatory standards that may inhibit economic recovery and shall consider taking appropriate action, consistent with applicable law, including by issuing proposed rules as necessary, to temporarily or permanently rescind, modify, waive, or exempt persons or entities from those requirements, and to consider exercising appropriate temporary enforcement discretion or appropriate temporary extensions of time as provided for in enforceable agreements with respect to those requirements, for the purpose of promoting job creation and economic growth, insofar as doing so is consistent with the law and with the policy considerations identified in section 1 of this order.
Sec. 5. Compliance assistance for regulated entities. (a) The heads of all agencies, excluding the Department of Justice, shall accelerate procedures by which a regulated person or entity may receive a pre-enforcement ruling under Executive Order 13892 with respect to whether proposed conduct in response to the COVID-19 outbreak, including any response to legislative or executive economic stimulus actions, is consistent with statutes and regulations administered by the agency, insofar as doing so is consistent with the law and with the policy considerations identified in section 1 of this order.
Pre‑enforcement rulings under this subsection may be issued without regard to the requirements of section 6(a) of Executive Order 13892.
(b) The heads of all agencies shall consider whether to formulate, and make public, policies of enforcement discretion that, as permitted by law and as appropriate in the context of particular statutory and regulatory programs and the policy considerations identified in section 1 of this order, decline enforcement against persons and entities that have attempted in reasonable good faith to comply with applicable statutory and regulatory standards, including those persons and entities acting in conformity with a pre-enforcement ruling.
(c) As a result of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, the Department of Health and Human Services, including through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and other agencies have issued, or plan to issue in the future, guidance on action suggested to stem the transmission and spread of that disease. In formulating any policies of enforcement discretion undersubsection (b) of this section, an agency head should consider a situation in which a person or entity makes a reasonable attempt to comply with such guidance, which the person or entity reasonably deems applicable to its circumstances, to be a rationale for declining enforcement under subsection (b) of this section. Non-adherence to guidance shall not by itself form the basis for an enforcement action by a Federal agency.
Sec. 6. Fairness in Administrative Enforcement and Adjudication. The heads of all agencies shall consider the principles of fairness in administrative enforcement and adjudication listed below, and revise their procedures and practices in light of them, consistent with applicable law and as they deem appropriate in the context of particular statutory and regulatory programs and the policy considerations identified in section 1 of this order.
(a) The Government should bear the burden of proving an alleged violation of law; the subject of enforcement should not bear the burden of proving compliance.
(b) Administrative enforcement should be prompt and fair.
(c) Administrative adjudicators should be independent of enforcement staff.
(d) Consistent with any executive branch confidentiality interests, the Government should provide favorable relevant evidence in possession of the agency to the subject of an administrative enforcement action.
(e) All rules of evidence and procedure should be public, clear, and effective.
(f) Penalties should be proportionate, transparent, and imposed in adherence to consistent standards and only as authorized by law.
(g) Administrative enforcement should be free of improper Government coercion.
(h) Liability should be imposed only for violations of statutes or duly issued regulations, after notice and an opportunity to respond.
(i) Administrative enforcement should be free of unfair surprise.
(j) Agencies must be accountable for their administrative enforcement decisions.
Sec. 7. Review of Regulatory Response. The heads of all agencies shall review any regulatory standards they have temporarily rescinded, suspended, modified, or waived during the public health emergency, any such actions they take pursuant to section 4 of this order, and other regulatory flexibilities they have implemented in response to COVID-19, whether before or after issuance of this order, and determine which, if any, would promote economic recovery if made permanent, insofar as doing so is consistent with the policy considerations identified in section 1 of this order, and report the results of such review to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy, and the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy.
Sec. 8. Implementation. The Director of the Office of Management and Budget, in consultation with the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy and the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy, shall monitor compliance with this order and may also issue memoranda providing guidance for implementing this order, including by setting deadlines for the reviews and reports required under section 7 of this order.
Sec. 9. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) Notwithstanding any other provision in this order, nothing in this order shall apply to any action that pertains to foreign or military affairs, or to a national security or homeland security function of the United States (other than procurement actions and actions involving the import or export of non-defense articles and services).
(d) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
Then, this happened...
Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©
